4.  The applicant was born in 1982. He is currently serving a prison sentence at Cherkasy Correctional Colony (Prison) (Черкаська Виправна Колонія № 62) (“the Colony”).
5.  On 12 September 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm to D. According to the police, on 11 September 2001 the applicant broke into D.'s house and attacked him with a knife as he was sleeping. D. received wounds to the left side of the chest, the left forearm and the left knee. As D. resisted the attack, the applicant pulled back. The applicant stayed at the scene of the crime and called the police and an ambulance.
6.  On 12 September 2001 the applicant was questioned by the police concerning the incident. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during his questioning.
7.  On 21 September 2001 the applicant was officially charged with aggravated hooliganism (Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code).
8.  For an unspecified period before the end of 2001 the applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr N.
9.  On 25 December 2001 the investigations were completed and the case was referred to Tarasha Court (Таращанський районний суд Київської області) for trial.
10.  At a preliminary hearing on 18 January 2002 the court decided to remit the case for additional investigation.
11.  On 23 April 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was sent to the same court.
12.  On 12 August 2002 Tarasha Court granted the applicant leave to be defended in the proceedings by his mother, who was not a lawyer.
13.  Between May 2002 and March 2003 the court held several hearings on the merits of the case and ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant, which was completed by March 2003. In the course of the court proceedings during the aforementioned period and during the ensuing investigations the applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr M.
14.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor taking part in the proceedings requested the court to remit the case for additional investigation, stating that there was evidence that the applicant had committed a more serious crime than the one with which he had been charged.
15.  On 12 March 2003 the court found that the criminal qualification of the applicant's actions was incorrect and remitted the case to the prosecutors for additional investigation. On 28 May 2003 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Київської області) dismissed an appeal by the applicant's lawyer against that decision, holding that the reasons for the remittal were based on the case materials and the prosecutor's request. The decision of the Court of Appeal did not suggest that it was subject to a further appeal.
16.  On 17 July 2003 the prosecutors brought new charges against the applicant, accusing him of attempted murder for hooligan motives and of unlawful entry into a private residence (Articles 15 § 2, 115 § 2 (7), and 162 § 1 of the Criminal Code). One of the possible sanctions under Article 115 § 2 of the Criminal Code was life imprisonment.
17.  On 25 July 2003 the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for trial.
18.  On an unspecified date a new lawyer, Mr T., appointed by the applicant, joined the proceedings before that court.
19.  On 15 October 2003 the court found the applicant guilty of unlawful entry into a private residence and aggravated hooliganism and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.
20.  On 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 15 October 2003, holding that the Court of Appeal had wrongly assessed evidence and misapplied substantive law in the case. It decided to remit the case to the same court for fresh consideration.
21.  In May-June 2004 the applicant appointed a new lawyer to assist him, Mr V., the other lawyers, Mr M. and Mr T., having ceased to represent the applicant for unspecified reasons.
22.  On 4 June 2004 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional investigation, finding that the prosecutors had failed to establish the motive for the applicant's actions on 11 September 2001.
23.  On 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 4 June 2004. In the proceedings before the Supreme Court the applicant was represented by his mother.
24.  On 8 June and 1 September 2004, respectively, the applicant was allowed to familiarise himself with the decisions of 4 June and 29 July 2004. No copies of those decisions were given to him.
25.  According to the Government, on 27 September 2004 the case was received by the prosecutors, who started additional investigations. The applicant submitted that the case had been received by the prosecutors on 1 September 2004.
26.  In the course of the additional investigations the prosecutors questioned several witnesses and ordered an expert examination of the knife with which the applicant had attacked the victim. The examination was completed on 18 October 2004.
27.  On 21 October 2004 a lawyer, Mr L., was appointed by the prosecutors to assist the applicant in the proceedings. According to the applicant, Mr L. did not assist him at all.
28.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the prosecutors concerning the issues raised before the expert examining the knife. It is unclear whether the lawyer L. was present during the applicant's questioning.
29.  On 23 October 2004 the investigators brought new charges against the applicant, following a requalification of his actions on 11 September 2001. The applicant was accused of attempted murder for mercenary motives and robbery accompanied by infliction of grievous bodily harm (Articles 15 § 3, 115 § 2 (6), and 187 § 3 of the Criminal Code).
30.  On 24 October 2004 the additional investigations were completed and on 12 November 2004 the case was sent to the Court of Appeal for trial.
31.  On 2 December 2004 the court held a preliminary hearing in the case, which the applicant's lawyer failed to attend.
32.  On 24 December 2004 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of attempted murder for mercenary motives and of robbery accompanied by infliction of grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, which was to be calculated from 12 September 2001, with confiscation of all his property. He was also ordered to pay 10,711.90 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] to D. in compensation and UAH 984.90[2] to a hospital in which D. had been treated.
33.  The court based its judgment partially on the statements of the applicant made before it and his statements obtained during the pre-trial investigations, the statements of the victim, an eyewitness and three other witnesses heard by the court, and reports from seven experts.
34.  The court noted that the applicant did not deny that he was involved in the incident, though his submissions concerning it during various stages of the proceedings differed substantially.
35.  By a separate ruling of 24 December 2004, the Court of Appeal found that the persons responsible for the pre-trial investigations had not complied with the requirements of promptness, objectivity and completeness, because of which the case had been remitted for additional investigation on three occasions. It ordered the prosecutors to adopt relevant measures in respect of those irregularities.
36.  The applicant's mother, acting on his behalf, and the applicant himself, lodged separate appeals in cassation with the Supreme Court. They alleged that the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and had wrongly applied the law in the case, that the pre-trial investigations had not been completed in due time, that the applicant had not been given accurate information concerning the charges against him, that his right to defence had been violated as no lawyer had been appointed to assist him from the beginning of the additional investigations in September 2004, and that because of this the applicant had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence.
37.  According to the applicant, the lawyer appointed for him by the authorities did not assist him in the preparation of his appeal in cassation.
38.  On 17 March 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 24 December 2004, finding, inter alia, that the applicant's right to defence had not been violated.
39.  Following his arrest on 12 September 2001, the applicant was placed in Tarasha Police Preliminary Detention Centre (Ізолятор тимчасового тримання Таращанського РВ ГУ МВС України в Київській області) (“the ITT”).
40.  On 14 September 2001 Tarasha Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the pending criminal investigations against him and ordered his placement in Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Слідчий ізолятор № 13 Управління Державного Департаменту України з питань виконання покарань в м. Києві та Київській області) (“the SIZO”). The court found that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious crime (aggravated hooliganism) punishable by the deprivation of liberty for a term of over ten years and that if the applicant remained at liberty he might seek to evade investigation and trial and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case.
41.  By a decision of 12 November 2001, the maximum period of the applicant's detention was extended for four months. Tarasha Court put forward similar reasons for the applicant's continued detention as were contained in its decision of 14 September 2001.
42.  Subsequently, the applicant's continued pre-trial detention was ordered by Tarasha Court decisions of 18 January, 22 May and 22 August 2002 and 12 March 2003, and of the Court of Appeal of 4 June and 2 December 2004, according to which that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant.
43.  For the same reasons, the applicant's requests of 12 August 2002, 11 March 2003 and 27 May 2004 for release from detention raised at court hearings in his case were rejected by Tarasha Court on 12 August 2002 and 11 March 2003 and by the Court of Appeal on 27 May 2004 respectively. On 21 March 2003 the Court of Appeal refused to consider the applicant's appeal against the decision of 11 March 2003, holding that procedural decisions adopted in the course of a trial, including decisions concerning preventive measures, were not subject to appeal.
44.  The applicant's request for release, which he had lodged with the Tarasha Court on 22 January 2002, was not considered on the merits, the applicant having been informed by a letter from that court that the matter had already been determined in its decision of 18 January 2002.
45.  The applicant's requests for release were mainly based on the following arguments: after the incident on 12 September 2001 the applicant had not tried to run away and had made no attempts to obstruct the collection of evidence or to destroy it; the charges against him were groundless; he was detained for a long period of time after his arrest in September 2001; and he had health problems for which he could not receive adequate treatment while in detention. In his submissions before the courts, the applicant suggested that he could be released on an undertaking not to abscond.
46.  Relying on the same arguments, the applicant appealed against the decision of 12 March 2003 (see paragraph 42 above). In its decision of 28 May 2003 the Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicant's appeal, though it did not elaborate on the matter.
47.  According to the applicant, on 24 November 2003 he lodged with the Court of Appeal an appeal in cassation against the decisions of 12 March and 28 May 2003, though this was not considered by the courts. The applicant did not provide a copy of his appeal in cassation. The Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed in cassation against the decisions of 12 March and 28 May 2003.
48.  The applicant was detained in the ITT until 11 September 2002, when he was placed in the SIZO. On 7 June 2005 he was transferred to the Colony.
49.  According to the applicant, on 20 January 2001 he became ill and was seen by an ambulance paramedic, who was not competent to establish a diagnosis or prescribe treatment. The applicant raised this matter before Tarasha Court in one of his requests for release, but to no avail. The applicant provided no further details of the incident on 20 January 2001.
50.  During his detention in the SIZO and the Colony the applicant underwent medical checks, including X-ray examinations and blood tests, on 12 September 2001, 11 September 2002, 18 April and 24 October 2003, 17 May, 7 June and 20 August 2005, and 26 June 2006. There were no serious health issues noted by the doctors examining the applicant.
51.  The applicant requested medical assistance on three occasions, namely on 14 September and 28 October 2005 and 27 April 2006. He was diagnosed with bronchitis and periodontitis, for which he was treated by doctors.
52.  On 27 June 2006 the applicant was examined by a medical panel composed of a prison doctor, a general practitioner, a dentist and a psychiatrist. They concluded that the applicant was “practically healthy” and that his state of health had not deteriorated since his arrival at the Colony. An additional medical examination of the applicant on 12 December 2006 confirmed those conclusions.
53.  According to the applicant, in the Colony he was at risk of contracting tuberculosis, as prisoners suffering from that condition were detained in the same building as the applicant, though on another floor. He also stated that between September and October 2005 the building had not been sufficiently heated and he had had no warm clothes. The applicant alleged that the light in the Colony was inadequate, but provided no further details.